Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Board Of Adjustment - 08/28/2002 • • • 12223,2_ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES August 28, 2002 ��� \40 s t � c Board Members Present: Peter Mahaffey, Chairman /o Thomas McDonald,Vice-Chairman -0 j, Louis Alvarado Robert Broadway Charles Schibi Staff Present: Miguel S. Saldafia, AICP, City Planner Doyle Curtis, Sr., Assistant City Attorney Erma Ramirez,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER Chairman Mahaffey opened the public hearing at 1:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall and explained the procedure to be followed. Thomas and Bea Richmond: Appeal No. ZBA0802-01 Request: A special yard exception to encroach 10 feet into the north 10-foot side yard setback on Padre Island Corpus Christi, Point Tesoro Unit 4, Block 30, Lot 1, located on the southeast corner of captain Kidd Drive and Beaufort Court. Mr. Miguel Saldana, City Planner, stated that the appellants, Thomas and Bea Richmond, are requesting a special yard exception to encroach 10 feet into the north 10-foot side yard setback in order to legalize an already existing shade awning on their property. He stated that the newly constructed awning extends into the public right-of-way and the Board does not have authority to act beyond the property line. Mr. Saldana described the surrounding land use by means of a computerized slide presentation. He also presented a site plan provided by the appellant. Twenty-seven (27) notices were mailed to property owners within a 200-foot radius, of which none were returned in favor and one (1) was returned in opposition. The applicant/owner of the subject property submitted a notice in favor of the request. Chairman Mahaffey opened the public hearing. Mr. Sam Reed, 7018 Buttermilk Dr., owner of Deck-O Construction, stated that he was the builder of the shade structure. Because of the stucco walls on the side of the house, there is poor air circulation on the north side of the house. He added that, if approved, the structure over the property line can be cut back. SCANNED Board of Adjustment Minutes • • August 28,2002 Page 2 Board Member McDonald asked if a building permit had been issued for the construction, to which Mr. Reed responded that the paperwork was with the Building Department at the time they started construction,but did not receive permit. Mr. Steve Paulson, 6502 Pebble Beach, stated that they were the original builders of the deck and shade structure and he had building permits issued at that time. No one else appeared in favor or in opposition,therefore, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Saldafia stated that Staff does not see any adverse impact on the adjoining properties since the property abuts the public right-of-way. Staff can only recommend approval of the encroachment on the 10-foot side yard. Staff cannot recommend encroachment on the public right-of-way because that would be a different process. He stated that the appellants would need building permits and inspections. Board Member Broadway asked who had built the existing 6-foot wall, and if the wall was blocking traffic view. Mr. Saida/la responded that the existing wall was built by the owner and that the wall was not in question. If the wall is within the visibility triangle, the Traffic Engineering Department could go and inspect the site to verify any visual obstructions. Board Member McDonald stated that the motion should include an investigation by the Traffic Engineering Department on the visibility issue. Mr. Saldafia added that the appellant is not required to have a building permit for the wall. Motion by Board Member Broadway, seconded by Alvarado, that the encroachment be approved up to the property line as per the site plan, with the condition that all building permits be obtained and that the existing 6-foot wall be inspected by the Traffic Engineering Department for any visual obstructions. Motion passed unanimously. (On September 12, 2002, the Traffic Engineering Department inspected the site and found that the wall is not in violation of the visibility triangle.) Keetch & Associates: Appeal No. ZBA0802-02 Request: A special yard exception to encroach 8 feet into the north 10-foot side yard setback on Del Mar Addition, Block 7, Lots 19 and 20,located on the east side of Santa Fe Street, approximately 240 feet south of Ayers Street. Mr. Miguel Saldafia stated that the appellants, Keetch & Associates Richmond, are requesting a special yard exception to encroach 8 feet into the north 10-foot side yard setback for Board of Adjustment Minutes • • Adjustment August 28,2002 Page 3 a proposed addition to the existing wood framed building. The purpose of the expansion is for the addition of office use. Mr. Saldaria described the surrounding land use by means of a computerized slide presentation. He also presented a schematic site plan provided by the appellant. Twenty-three (23) notices were mailed to property owners within a 200-foot radius, of which none were returned in favor or in opposition. The owner of the subject property submitted a notice in favor of the request. Chairman Mahaffey asked if the existing structure was in violation. Mr. Saldana responded that when the structure was originally built, there were no building requirements and the building was set back at 3 feet. The new addition has to be in accordance with the current building requirements. Chairman Mahaffey opened the public hearing. Ms. Rachel Dehn, 3231 Willard Dr. in Portland, Texas, representative for Keetch & Associates, stated that without the approval of the request they would have to move their insurance office to another location. They do not have space for parking and other necessary requirements. They plan to keep the same exterior look but have not decided whether to keep the same peer and beam or concrete slab. They had considered constructing a 2-story building, but that would require an elevator, and that would be cost prohibitive in their situation. Chairman Mahaffey asked if they had the 10-foot setback, how many parking spaces would be lost. Mr. Dennis Haas, 318 Beverly, responded that he did not know. By not being able to continue the building line across the structure they would not be able to create enough area for office space to make an addition feasible. The addition would be approximately 1,300 square feet and that would be marginal for their need. They cannot move forward until a decision is made. No one appeared in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Saldana stated that the existing residence is already encroaching into the side yard setback. The proposed addition would continue that line, therefore, Staff has no objection to the encroachment. The addition will not adversely affect the adjoining property owners, therefore, recommends approval. Motion by Board Member Broadway, seconded by Schibi, that the request be approved for the addition to the existing structure subject to the site plan. Motion passed unanimously. 00 Board of Adjustment Minutes • August 28,2002 Page 4 Daniel and Darlene Nichols: Appeal No. ZBA0802-03 Request: A special yard exception to encroach 5 feet into the 5-foot side yard setbacks,located on the east side of Bimini Drive, approximately 1,100 feet south of Caribbean Drive. Mr. Saldana stated that the appellants, Daniel and Darlene Nichols, have requested a special yard exception to encroach 5 feet into the 5-foot side yard setbacks to allow a newly built deck to extend to the property line. He presented photos of the deck depicting the encroachment. He stated that the deck was built to and beyond the property line and any action taken by the Board would only be up to the property line. He described the surrounding land use by means of a computerized slide presentation and a site plan provided by the appellants. Twenty-two (22) notices were mailed to the surrounding property owners, of which none were returned in favor and thirteen (13)were returned in opposition. The applicant/owner of the subject property submitted a notice in favor. Chairman Mahaffey opened the public hearing. Mr. Steve Paulson, 6205 Pebble Beach, stated that he finished the deck after another builder left the job undone. He finished the side and back of the deck. The corner that is encroaching was already existing before he took the job. They installed the handrails on the deck because they were not completed. Because her house is on a peer and beam, the only access to her windows or to the back of the house is through the deck. The only access she has to the back of the house is through her front door. She has to go around the side yard to get to the back of her deck. The handrails are on the property line but that can be moved to comply with the setback requirement. If the house was built on slab on the ground, there would not be any problem. They are approximately 1-1/2"— 2" on the property line, but that can be rectified by cutting it down. They are requesting the encroachment in order to get around the house for safety reasons. Board Member Broadway inquired if a building permit had been issued. Mr. Paulson answered that he had been gotten a building permit after having asked Mrs. Nichols if a permit had been issued and she said probably not. He presented building permit #B40391. The permit was for what he was going to construct and for the existing deck. She has retainer walls for erosion purposes on the left side of the house. The deck is about 5 feet wide. Board Member Schibi asked if the deck had to be 5 feet wide, to which Mr. Paulson responded that it could be cut back to about 3 feet. Mr. Saldafia stated that the building permit was issued in error. It does not matter what the permit was issued for, the deck still had to meet the setback requirements. Any size deck would still require Board of Adjustment action. Board of Adjustment Minutes August 28,2002 Page 5 Mrs. Darlene Gregory Nichols, 3237 Bimini, owner of the subject property, stated that the exterior decks were dangerous. When her engineer and contractor looked at the property, she was told that she would need retainer walls to prevent erosion on her property. She expressed concerns over her children in case of a fire and at the same time continue the integrity of the neighborhood. On the side yard on the south, the house is built so close to the property line that there is very little to pass through. She added that when the survey was done, she was told that in order to get to the side of the house, she would need to build a deck. She noted that the side of the deck is never used for entertaining,only for access. Mrs. Carol Karter, 3233 Bimini, appeared in opposition stating that the encroachment will devalue their property. She presented photos of the deck and also some legal documents depicting a survey done by a professional engineer. According to a recent survey, the deck is located approximately 6 inches into their property. Infringing into their property, they are now lacking privacy in their backyard. She urged the Board to deny the request. Mr. Saldar'a stated that based on comments received from property owners, the encroachment does adversely impact their properties and their values. Staff agrees and, therefore, recommends denial. Mrs. Nichols stated that they are willing to adjust deck for access. Her concerns were not of an aesthetic nature, only the safety for her children in case of an emergency. Mrs. Karter stated that the portion towards the back is the one infringing on their setback. They have stairs leading down. There has never been a wrap-around deck because of the infringement. That portion of the deck is right on top of them. Anything less than 5 feet is still overpowering at that site. She stated that in an emergency, one can get over retaining walls. After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Board Member Schibi, seconded by Broadway,that the request be denied. Motion passed unanimously. NOTE: For detailed information on testimony, refer to the tape retained on file in the Planning Department. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes for the August 28,2002 meeting were approved as written. OTHER MATTERS Mr. Saldana stated that a property owner requested a building permit for a swimming pool in the front yard and based on the drawings presented to the Building Division, a permit was granted. Upon inspection of the pool, it was determined that there was an encroachment into the front yard setback and was redtagged. After some discussion, the Director of Development Services, Mr. Art Sosa, has requested that the Board of Adjustment consider holding a special meeting to hear the appeal for a special yard exception. The next regular meeting is • Board of Adjustment Minutes August 28,2002 Page 6 September 25, 2002 and the earliest would be September 11, 2002. The earliest meeting date the Staff recommends is September 18, 2002, due to the current workload and required public notification of appeal. Chairman Mahaffey indicated that one additional week would not impact the existing conditions or timetable. After a brief discussion, a decision was made not to call a special meeting. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Saldana informed the Board that Board Members Broadway and Schibi both had three (3) absences. He added that the Board could excuse the last meeting missed in order not to count the meeting as missed. The Board Members in question could request an excused absence from the Board for the last month, and, if granted, would only have two (2) absences. Board Member Schibi requested an excused absence for the last meeting (July 24, 2002). The Board moved and granted an excused absence. A motion was made on behalf of Board Member Broadway to have his absence excused. The Board moved and granted an excused absence. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:07 p.m. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The August 28, 2002 Board of Adjustment minutes were approved as amended on September 25, 2002. ATTEST: Peter B. Mahaffey, Chairman H:\PLN-DIR\ERMA\WORD\ZBA\MINUTES\082802ZBAMINUTES2.DOC